Search form

Picking fruit for a tour around the world

My brother Doug was recalling the size of his high school class (pushing 30 or so) the other day and he mentioned the class had bonus members — two exchange students from Finland.

The comment brought immediate snickers from Doug’s wife Amy, who questioned why the Finnish exchange students would agree to come to tiny Bertrand, Neb., for their taste of the U.S.

Why not?

Doug assured Amy that the two students had the time of their lives going to high school on the plains of south-central Nebraska.

I suppose we must take him at his word as the Finns have long since returned to their homeland.

But the story reminds me that folks like to travel, and this desire to see what is around the bend is particularly true for young people.

I recently read online (http://tinyurl.com/dxfkfah) that agriculture officials in Chile are looking at the New Zealand model of luring adventuresome tourists to help with fruit harvest. The New Zealand model allows the entry of foreigners for up to six months to work in agriculture.

Can the use of “backpackers” as fruit pickers be transferable to Chile — or to the U.S., for that matter?

Ironically, New Zealand officials told their Chilean counterparts that about 1,000 Chileans come to New Zealand each year to work on farms. Ouch, that hurts, N.Z.

Since U.S. growers are leaving no stone unturned to find a labor force, they might want to put out feelers to adventuresome youths in other countries. See the world and pick apples in beautiful Washington state! Pick lettuce near the central coast of California!

If I were them, I would start looking for workers in Finland.

———

I was at my car mechanic’s shop the other day and asked him how the economy was doing. Not so well, he said. Stressed out by the slow economy and government largesse, he confided that America will meet a day of reckoning and someday go back to the gold standard.

His transparent if bleak views on government aren’t shared by the mainstream. Every government program and regulation under the sun can be justified until the cows come home.

But the question of “What about Bob?” and the multiplicity of federal feeding programs caught my eye the other day.

In discussing the House budget plan in floor debate, Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., contended America is “on the economic road to Greece,” with the national debt now at 100% of the U.S. gross domestic product.

“You know there are 44 different federal job training programs? If one of them works, why would you need the other 43?” Kingston said.

What about Bob?

And then he took square aim at the federal feeding programs via the mythical “Bob.”

If “Bob” is 3 years old, Kingston said, he is eligible for 12 federal feeding programs, including food stamps, child and adult care program, commodity supplemental food program, the fresh fruit and vegetable program, the national school lunch program, WIC and more.

At age 10, Bob is still eligible for nine. At 35 years old, Bob is eligible for seven federal feeding programs. And at 65, Kingston says Bob can potentially take part in six federal feeding programs.

There are unnecessary duplications in federal feeding programs that Democrats and Republicans alike should agree to eliminate, Kingston said.

Of course it is simplistic to say that federal programs are duplicative without pointing out how they are so.

Nutrition advocates and industry leaders can defend any one of these federal feeding programs — and particularly the fresh fruit and vegetable program, if you will — as a key part of the safety net and sound nutrition policy.

But there is a growing sense among mechanics and moms that America’s ability to inject cash into food stamp debit cards for more than 46 million Americans (up 15% from last year) and to fund other federal feeding programs besides is not sustainable.

Not when we are on the road to Greece.

When Americans go to the ATM and there is nothing left to withdraw, what happens then?

As a people, we need to respect the fact that folks like Kingston are asking “What about Bob?” It is a question my mechanic would answer emphatically.

My brother Doug was recalling the size of his high school class (pushing 30 or so) the other day and he mentioned the class had bonus members — two exchange students from Finland.

The comment brought immediate snickers from Doug’s wife Amy, who questioned why the Finnish exchange students would agree to come to tiny Bertrand, Neb., for their taste of the U.S. Why not?

Doug assured Amy that the two students had the time of their lives going to high school on the plains of south-central Nebraska.

I suppose we must take him at his word as the Finns have long since returned to their homeland.

But the story reminds me that folks like to travel, and this desire to see what is around the bend is particularly true for young people.

I recently read online that agriculture officials in Chile are looking at the New Zealand model of luring adventuresome tourists to help with fruit harvest. The New Zealand model allows the entry of foreigners for up to six months to work in agriculture.

Can the use of “backpackers” as fruit pickers be transferable to Chile — or to the U.S., for that matter?

Ironically, New Zealand officials told their Chilean counterparts that about 1,000 Chileans come to New Zealand each year to work on farms. Ouch, that hurts, N.Z.

Since U.S. growers are leaving no stone unturned to find a labor force, they might want to put out feelers to adventuresome youths in other countries. See the world and pick apples in beautiful Washington state! Pick lettuce near the central coast of California!

If I were them, I would start looking for workers in Finland.

———

I was at my car mechanic’s shop the other day and asked him how the economy was doing. Not so well, he said. Stressed out by the slow economy and government largesse, he confided that America will meet a day of reckoning and someday go back to the gold standard.

His transparent if bleak views on government aren’t shared by the mainstream. Every government program and regulation under the sun can be justified until the cows come home.

But the question of “What about Bob?” and the multiplicity of federal feeding programs caught my eye the other day.

In discussing the House budget plan in floor debate, Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., contended America is “on the economic road to Greece,” with the national debt now at 100% of the U.S. gross domestic product.

“You know there are 44 different federal job training programs? If one of them works, why would you need the other 43?” Kingston said.

What about Bob?

And then he took square aim at the federal feeding programs via the mythical “Bob.”

If “Bob” is 3 years old, Kingston said, he is eligible for 12 federal feeding programs, including food stamps, child and adult care program, commodity supplemental food program, the fresh fruit and vegetable program, the national school lunch program, WIC and more.

At age 10, Bob is still eligible for nine. At 35 years old, Bob is eligible for seven federal feeding programs. And at 65, Kingston says Bob can potentially take part in six federal feeding programs.

There are unnecessary duplications in federal feeding programs that Democrats and Republicans alike should agree to eliminate, Kingston said.

Of course it is simplistic to say that federal programs are duplicative without pointing out how they are so.

Nutrition advocates and industry leaders can defend any one of these federal feeding programs — and particularly the fresh fruit and vegetable program, if you will — as a key part of the safety net and sound nutrition policy.

But there is a growing sense among mechanics and moms that America’s ability to inject cash into food stamp debit cards for more than 46 million Americans (up 15% from last year) and to fund other federal feeding programs besides is not sustainable.

Not when we are on the road to Greece.

When Americans go to the ATM and there is nothing left to withdraw, what happens then?

As a people, we need to respect the fact that folks like Kingston are asking “What about Bob?”

Related Articles

About the Author:

Tom Karst

Tom Karst is national editor for The Packer, covering issues of importance to the produce industry including immigration, farm policy and food safety.
He began his career with Vance Publishing Corp., The Packer's parent company, in 1984 as one of the founding editors of ProNet, a pioneering electronic news service for the produce industry. Tom has also served as markets editor for The Packer and editor of Global Produce magazine in his time at Vance Publishing, among other positions.
Tom is also the main author of Fresh Talk, www.tinyurl.com/freshtalkblog, an industry blog that has been active since November 2006.
Previous to Vance, Tom worked from 1982 to 1984 at Harris Electronic News, a farm videotext service based in Hutchinson, Kansas.
Tom has a bachelor’s degree in agricultural journalism from Kansas State University, Manhattan.
He can be reached at tkarst@thepacker.com and 913-438-0769. Find Tom's Twitter account at www.twitter.com/tckarst.